THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 131 of 2012.

                                                         Date of Institution: 07.03.2012.

                                                          Date of Decision: -28.10.2016.

Jagdev Singh aged about 42 years son of Shri Hoshiyar Singh, resident of village & PO Bhageshwari, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                                                              ….Complainant.  

                                      Versus

1. Gokalchand Surajbhan through its Proprietor Vijay, Anaj Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

1. Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals, 18 Barakhamba Road, 6^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                   …...OPs.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

  Mrs. Sudesh, Member

Present:-     None for complainant.

None for OP no. 1.

OP no. 2 already exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased chemical fertilizer namely Single Super Phosphate manufactured by Tedco Granite Ltd., and marketed by OP no. 2 from OP no. 1 on 05.09.2011, 40 bags quantity vide cash memo dated 05.09.2011 for Rs. 9200/-.  It is alleged that the actual rate of said fertilizer per bag was Rs. 205/- whereas the OP no. 1 charged Rs. 230/- per bag from the complainant.  It is alleged that complainant objected for charging more than the maxim retail price (MRP) but the OP no. 1 instead of agreeing to the objection of the complainant argued him that he would charge than the MRP printed on the bag. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and loss.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He

2.                     On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant had not come to the court with clean hands. It is submitted that he is not running the business of sale of chemical fertilizer in the name of Gokalchan Surajbhan Firm/OP no. 1.  Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                OP no. 2 has failed to come present.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.11.2013.

4.                Counsel for complainant closed his evidence after tendering documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.

5.                 Counsel for the OP no. 1 closed his evidence without tendering documents.

6.                This case is pending for arguments since 23.12.2015.  Since 23.12.2015 none is appearing on behalf of the complainant and counsel for OP no. 1 is also not appearing in this case except on two hearings.  This case was filed by the complainant on 07.03.2012.  It is very old case.  We proceed to decide this case on merits after perusing the material on the file. 

7.                The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops for charging Rs. 230/-per bag of chemical fertilizer against MRP of Rs. 205/-.  The complainant in support of his contention has produced the copy of bill Annexure R-1, and complaint made to SDM Charkhi Dadri Annexure R-2 and the report of Sub Divisional Agri.

 Officer Ch. Dadri to the complainant in response of his complaint dated 09.09.2011 Annexure R-3.  On the other side, the OP has contended in his reply that he is not running the business of sale of chemical fertilizer in the name of Gokalchand Surajbhan Firm/OP no. 1.

8.                We have perused the bill Annexure R-1, in this bill no description of the article and rate has been mentioned.  The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Ch. Dadri in his report no. 1080 dated 28.12.2011 Annexure R-3 has concluded that the said officer has inspected the report of OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 has also given in writing that he is not vendor of agriculture fertilizers, he further stated that the OP no. 1 has no business of fertilizer in its name.

9.                The complainant has failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove his version that the chemical fertilizer bag was having MRP of Rs. 205/- and the OP no. 1 has charged Rs. 230/- for the said bag.  Considering the material on the record, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case.  Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Dated:-28.10.2016.                 

                                                                                (Rajesh Jindal)                        

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anamika Gupta)                          (Sudesh)

      Member.                                  Member